Commentary: Local first or Interregional?

I'm glad Tony Orth pointed out recently that the Willits bypass is not for Willits. That is certainly clear when you read CalTrans' purpose of the project, which is "to reduce delays, improve safety, and achieve a "Level of Service C" for interregional traffic on US 101".

That is interregional traffic, folks. It does very little for local or regional traffic.

Caltrans has been coming to town for decades selling people on the benefits to our town.

By now I hope it is becoming clearer to people that for Willits, the benefits are far outweighed by the harm headed our way. Harm to our local economy, to City of Willits revenue, to the farmland surrounding us-which could be better used to grow food-and harm the peace and rural character we all enjoy.

This struggle to balance local/regional with interregional needs is not new to California. In the 1950s, the Department of Transportation was furiously building freeways both in large metropolitan areas and interregionally to connect them. In 1956, the San Francisco Chronicle published a map of the proposed and actual freeway routes through San Francisco. This map so galvanized the public that protest gained momentum and eventually succeeded, becoming known as the great "freeway revolt". Parts of the Embarcadero Freeway were eventually torn down.

Other cities and even other countries followed suit. However, there is still a constant push to spend money on interregional projects while the needs of the local come last.

Instead of putting this eyesore through our valley, Willits and the county could just as easily put their resources into a solution to the Willits bottleneck. That solution would not only benefit Willits but also other parts of the region, like Fort Bragg, which is served mainly by Highway 20.

The struggle for priorities has gone on so long, in so many parts of the state, that in the 1990's a number of bills were passed. Senate Bill 45, passed in 1997 (the State Transportation Improvement Program, or STIP) was specific: only 25 percent of the funding was for CalTrans to prioritize as it sees fit. Seventy-five percent of the funds were designated for County Councils of Governments (COGs) to use as they see fit. This money could have funded local projects or it could even have been dedicated to a Willits bypass whose purpose was to place local needs first.

So why would the Mendocino Council of Government (MCOG) immediately give two rounds of funding back to CalTrans for a bypass that was just an interregional project? It could have been used to solve the bottleneck in Willits with careful in-town circulation improvements and a modest two-lane parkway that could serve the movement of local traffic as well as through traffic.

I think Tony's description of these funds being state funds intended for the state highway system is a misconception that has not only been widespread but promoted by the staff at MCOG.

The verbiage in SB45 is pretty clear. It reads that the funds controlled by the COG's are to be used for "transportation improvement projects that are needed to improve transportation within the region. The projects may include, but shall not be limited to, improving state highways, local roads, public transit, intercity rail, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and grade separation, transportation system management, transportation demand management, soundwall projects, intermodal facilities, and safety." I think this covers everything from filling potholes to "complete streets," which are the fancy tree-lined pedestrian-friendly downtowns.

Maybe in 1998 MCOG was unprepared to produce a bunch of projects ready for funding. But then CalTrans' interregional project wasn't exactly ready for funding either. Holding these funds for CalTrans all these years has meant that local improvements that could have been built by local contractors were not even designed. And every year those funds can buy less.

But missing this chance to fund the transportation improvements that help us first is not the biggest waste. The fact that the state itself would squander $300 million for a mere 8000 vehicles per day is really obscene. A four-lane freeway the size of I-5 is designed to carry around 40,000 vehicles a day and only reaches its capacity at 80,000 vehicles per day.

This is an extreme waste of money. If you want to see what 8,000 vehicles a day looks like check out a picture from the webcam that has been placed one-mile north of Willits and takes a picture every hour and posts it on the CalTrans website (video.dot.ca.gov). At the same time the Natural Resources Defense Council estimates there is a $300 billion shortfall on maintenance to the transportation systems in California. This is the real need.

On the North Coast our mountains are steep, the soil is prone to slides and our rivers are impaired by sediment. A history of logging and now rural living using the same old roads continues the downward slide of the hills into the waters.

CalTrans should maintain existing bridges, culverts and roadways rather than building new, outsized freeways where they aren't needed. They would spend much less money putting local needs first, while improving interregional movement as a side benefit.